Adrian, I'm fine with this draft as long as it stays informational and is viewed as a commentary on how what we are doing in the border land between individual and formal working group documents, i.e. this is not an IETF process text. Names of ID file are a bit trickier than what I get from this draft It is true that a document with a file name as: draft-<wgname>-ietf-... uniquely is a working group document; you need the approval of the wg chair(s) to have a draft with that file name posted. However, a draft with the file name: draft-<individual>-ietf... may or may not be wg document, and it is actually so when the the working group chairs states on the wg mailing list that it is. Admittedly this is often followed by a request to re-post it with the common format of file names for wg documents, but it is not the posting with the wg name format that makes it a wg document, it is the announcement from wg chairs. It is nowhere required to change the file name just because the document has become a working group document. Stupid not to do it, but not required. For example the appsawg does have two parked *wg documents* that does not follow the naming convention above. Now in section 5.1. you talk about a special case "documents supported by a working", but that remains an individual draft but progress according to the wg processes. I think that what is now RFC 3468 was such a case; even though we at that did not talk about in those terms. I think it would be clearer if you in section 5.1. just said that there might be individual documents that is supported by a working group, and that follows the naming conventions for individual documents. /Loa On 2013-05-28 11:32, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi, Dave Crocker and I have this little draft [1] discussing the process and considerations for creating formal working group drafts that are targeted for publication. We believe that this may help clarify some of the issues and concerns associated with this part of the process. We are targeting this as Informational (i.e. commentary on existing process, not new normative definition of process) and would like your input. What is not clear? What have we got wrong? How should we resolve the remaining editor notes? Thanks, Adrian (per pro Dave) [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-id-adoption-02.txt
-- Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Senior MPLS Expert loa@xxxxx Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64